openai_get_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe, read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential error cases (e.g., invalid project_id), authentication requirements, or response details beyond implying 'details'. For a simple getter this is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is a bit redundant with the schema, but it adds the useful hint about openai_list_projects, so every sentence earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter), minimal schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the sole parameter. It could additionally state when to use it versus alternatives, but that gap is minor for a simple get operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides the parameter name and type (project_id, string) with no description. The tool description's Args block adds meaning: 'The project's ID (see openai_list_projects)', which tells the agent where to find the ID and confirms it's a project identifier. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a single project's details', which is a specific verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('a single project's details'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openai_list_projects (which lists all projects) and openai_get_project_user (which gets a project user). The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific project ID and want its details, as opposed to listing all projects. The argument hint 'see openai_list_projects' suggests a workflow (get the ID from the list tool), but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement. The guidance is clear from context but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.